From info at j-n-v.org Sun Apr 25 19:03:03 2010 From: info at j-n-v.org (Justice Not Vengeance) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:03:03 +0100 Subject: [JNV] JNV Appeal / JNV takes British Govt to court / New JNV Briefings Message-ID: 1) JNV appeal for support 2) Donations details 3) Maya Evans takes British Government to court 4) JNV Briefing 123: Miliband vs Iran ---- Dear friends, Justice Not Vengeance is currently involved in several critical anti-war initiatives. By carefully management of our finances we have survived for over two years without making a financial appeal, but now our reserves are running low and we must turn to you for support to help us continue our work. This week Maya Evans of JNV has been taking the British Government to court over its treatment of Afghan detainees. With the support of Public Interest Lawyers, Maya will be back in the High Court next week to challenge the Government. (Please see below for some links.) Together with Milan Rai of JNV and several other activists, Maya is also awaiting the next move from the courts in relation to the Northwood die-in for NATO's victims in Afghanistan a year ago. Mil and Maya and several others were found guilty of causing "serious" disruption to the life of the community around the Northwood military base; they were fined and they informed the court they would not pay their fines for reasons of conscience. Mil and Maya are waiting to hear from their local court in Hastings, which is likely to send them to prison for refusing to pay their fines. JNV is also the main organisational sponsor for a walk scheduled for June in support of Joe Glenton, the British soldier imprisoned in Clolchester for refusing to return to fight in Afghanistan. We are planning to walk from London to Colchester (after a day of counter-recruitment protests in London) at the end of June, over five days (27 June - 1 July). Since our last appeal we've helped organise the Northwood die-in, held workshops in schools, delivered talks around the country, contributed to various anti-war gatherings and conferences. We've also distributed - for free - thousands of our high-quality, highly-readable, anti-war briefings. There are two new briefings on the Iran crisis now on the JNV website (and a new new one below). As usual they are solidly referenced, with copious web links, and printable as double-sided A4 sheets. For the future, apart from the things we've already mentioned, we have other plans we would like to take forward, including producing a campaigning pack on Iran; and developing an art-politics project to do with oil (following on from our very successful Iran art-politics project which is currently on display at the central library in Birmingham). All this is done with volunteer, unpaid labour. Please support JNV as generously as you can. No donation is too large or too small. We are especially grateful to those kind supporters who have standing orders with JNV. Please help JNV to continue making its special contribution to the anti-war movement. Best wishes, Maya Evans, Emily Johns, Milan Rai ---- DONATIONS Details of our bank account are below if you are able and willing to make bank transfers or to set up standing orders. Account name: Justice Not Vengeance Account number: 78520921 Bank: Nationwide Building Society, 40 London Road, St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex TN37 6AN Sort code: 07-00-55 Otherwise please send cheques made out to 'JNV' to: 29 Gensing Road, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN38 0HE. ---- MAYA TAKES BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO COURT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7607442/Britain-= hands-over-prisoners-in-Afghanistan-to-face-torture.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/19/torture-risk-taliban-british-ac= cused http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i1JhgNRnyzDh1s7sUxm_= 00YL3rBQ http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/89360 http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5637425-uk-high-court-to-hear-all= egations-of-british-complicity-in-torture-in-afghanistan http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267375/British-handed-Taliban-susp= ects-tortured.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/25/afghan-mi5-prisoners-tortured ---- JNV BRIEFING 123: MILIBAND VS IRAN Foreign Secretary Undermined By His Ambassador HOW MUCH TIME? TRACKING THE FOREIGN OFFICE LINE(S) On 27 Mar., British Foreign Secretary David Miliband wrote a fierce attack on Iran in the International Herald Tribune, in which he repeated many standard propaganda claims. Amusingly, many of these claims were undermined if not contradicted by a speech five days earlier by the British Ambassador to the US, Nigel Sheinwald, made to The American Jewish Committee of Miami/Broward County, Florida. (Web links below; they will be posted properly with the briefing itself on j-n-v.org mid-week.) Miliband began with a sense of urgency, writing about the Iranian nuclear programme: =93I am concerned that in too many countries, the dangers are seen as theoretical, the time frame leisurely.=94 Sheinwald, on the other hand, told his audience: =93in international relations there are rarely overnight solutions to complex problems, and patience is usually a virtue. Our long term strategy of trying to fundamentally alter the cost-benefit equation for Iran remains right. We still have some time.=94 He made the same point twice in his speech: =93the IAEA report [on Iran=92s uranium enrichment programme] also highlighted continuing technical difficulties. We do not comment publicly on intelligence assessments, but most countries agree that Iran is still some way from being able to produce a weapon or having a meaningful break-out capability [to develop a military nuclear programme from its civilian one]. There is still time for diplomacy and political pressure to work.=94 THE =93OPEN HAND=94 PLOY Miliband (writing in a US publication) praised President Barack Obama, and condemned Iranian policy towards him: =93President Obama reaches out to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and his offer is dismissed either as a PR stunt or part of a crafty plot=97and certainly not seen for what it was, a ground-breaking offer to change US-Iran relations.=94 Ambassador Sheinwald is an interesting person to comment on this, as he was quoted to embarassing effect during the US presidential campaign. Today he says to Miami/Broward: =93President Obama=92s offer of a dialogue with Iran... was an approach my own government strongly supported.=94 Back in 2008, Sheinwald wrote (in a secret memo sent to London): =93If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for =91unconditional=92 dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the [United Nations Security Council]=92s requirement of prior suspension of [uranium] enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin.=94 (Telegraph, 2 Oct. 2008) In early 2008, Democratic Presidential nominee Obama fought bitter battles with his Republican opponent John McCain over Obama=92s startling (and enormously popular=97within the Democratic grassroots) proposal to hold unconditional talks with Iran. In May 2008, Obama invoked John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who were willing to hold talks with the Soviet Union during the Cold War: =93Why shouldn=92t we have the same courage and confidence to talk to our enemies? That=92s what strong countries do. That=92s what strong presidents do. One of the things you have to ask yourself: What are George Bush and John McCain afraid of [in] demanding a country meets all of your conditions before you meet with them?=94 (CNN, 18 May 2008) Obama had set out his position a year earlier. Obama was asked: =93would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?=94 (CNN/YouTube debate, 23 July 2007) He said: =93I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them=97which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration=97is ridiculous. (APPLAUSE) ... I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.=94 His opponent Hillary Clinton described this position as =93irresponsible and frankly naive=94. (Guardian, 25 July 2007) Ambassador Sheinwald and the British government apparently agreed. Once in office, Obama did not hold to his promise, but on 20 Mar. 2009, he did make a personal appeal to Iran, via the internet. (BBC) Miliband condemns Iran for seeing this as a =93crafty plot=94. Sheinwald praises the move for its craftiness: =93there were also good tactical reasons for the US to hold out what President Obama described as an =91extended palm=92. The offer of dialogue by what the Iranians refer to as the Great Satan presented the regime with some profound political dilemmas. More importantly, the US offer of dialogue has strengthened the case for sanctions internationally. A year ago, regrettably, too many members of the international community contended that the problem was that the US would not talk to Iran, rather than Iran=92s nuclear ambition.=94 Now, with the Obama video appeal, Iran could be portrayed as the unco-operative one=97despite the response of Iran=92s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei: =93You change, and our behaviour will change.=94 (Independent on Sunday, 22 Mar. 2009) MANY IRANS Miliband=92s main move was to contrast the Iranian ruling establishment with Iranian civil society; one is bad, the other is good. Thus he said: =93there are many Irans=94, one =93a highly educated, entrepreneurial people, with a celebrated culture and civilization=94=97=93Then there is an Iran whose economy is a mess.=94 Now, how did that happen? Sheinwald told his audience: =93The sort of financial sanctions pioneered by the US Treasury, and built on by other Western countries and UN are causing real pain.... The outgoing Iranian finance minister last year referred to international financial measures as a form of economic warfare.=94 He quotes the Iran Chamber of Commerce estimate that the cost of sanctions and financial restrictions had raised the costs of imports by 20-25%. Sheinwald observes: =93economic pressures are increasing, as a result of years of mismanagement, the impact of UN and EU sanctions and the impact of what I call de facto sanctions.... We estimate that inflation is running at close to 20%. De facto sanctions are affecting the oil and gas industry, which Iran depends on for 80% of its exports and 50% of government revenues. Struggling to maintain investment and procure technical equipment as a result of sanctions, Iran=92s oil production and exports both fell by 10% last year.=94 Iran=92s economic future, Sheinwald comments, =93largely depends on its development of its huge, essentially virgin gas reserves=94, which requires =93huge investment=94 from outside=97investments that are not coming because of US-led financial sanctions. IRAN VS TALIBAN & AL-QA=92EDA Miliband complained that the Iranian regime =93isolates itself from international cooperation on Afghanistan=94. Contradicting his boss, Sheinwald points out that: =93There have been issues on which we have been able to work constructively with Iran, notably earlier this decade over Afghanistan.=94 James Dobbins, US special envoy to Afghanistan, wrote later that at the 2001 Bonn conference on reconstructing Afghanistan, while the Iranian, Russian and Indian delegations were all helpful: =93None was more so than the Iranians.=94 When the Iranians offered to quarter, clothe and train as many as 20,000 recruits for the new Afghan force, Dobbins expressed reservations to the Iranian general making the offer. =93 =91Well,=92 my interlocutor responded, =93we trained, equipped a= nd continue to pay the troops with which you toppled the Taliban and are now rooting out al-Qa'eda. Are you encountering any problems with their loyalty?=94 I had to admit that we were not.=92 (Washington Post, 6 May 2004) (Former US National Security Council officers Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann described some of this co-operation over Afghanistan and al-Qa=92eda in an op-ed in the New York Times, 22 Dec. 2006, which was censored by the White House after being passed by the CIA=92s Publication Review Board.) NUCLEAR NATIONALISM The point of Miliband=92s =93two nation=94 depiction of Iran is to portray the regime as totally isolated from the Iranian people. In contrast, Sheinwald acknowledges the basic truths that: =93Iran=92s own recent history, particularly the 8 year Iran-Iraq war, in which Iran was subject to chemical and ballistic missile attack, left many Iranians feeling that they needed their own deterrent. The nuclear issue is a nationalist issue inside Iran.=94 A Sept. 2009 poll in Iran found that 55% of Iranians wanted to develop civilian nuclear power only; 38% wanted to develop both atomic bombs and nuclear power; only 3% wanted to have no nuclear programs. 54% opposed the idea of lifting sanctions in return for Iran agreeing not to enrich uranium. (WorldPublicOpinion, 3 Feb. 2010) References: Miliband: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/opinion/27iht-edmiliband.html Sheinwald: http://ukinusa.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=3DSpeech&id=3D21930770 Sheinwald during Obama candidacy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3125= 120/Exclusive-Barack-Obama-is-aloof-says-British-ambassador-to-US.html McCain May 2008: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/19/mccain.free.tra= de/ Obama July 2007: http://www.cfr.org/publication/13876/democratic_debate_transcript_cnnyoutub= e.html Guardian, July 2007: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jul/25/digitalmedia.broadcasting Obama 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7954211.stm Khamenei 2009: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obamas-over= tures-just-a-slogan-says-irans-spiritual-head-1651334.html Dobbins: http://www.rand.org/commentary/2004/05/06/WP.html Leveretts: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22leverett.html World Public Opinion: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.p= hp